The Two Debates....in a nutshell

[tecoyah]

Taken from another thread, in hopes of halting a possible threadjack, and expanding on a possibility:

"So...in reality we have two completely seperate debates on the one issue. First and formost would be the Ethics involved in stopping a fetus from reaching Fruition, followed closely by the willingness of us all to allow individuals to make descisions that may be counter to our own understanding of the first debate.
Seems like the whole conundrum in a nutshell."

Shall we try to tackle debate #1........the Ethics;

This is the tough one, as we all have ethical standings, as individual as we are. We must therefore come to a consensus on first:

1) What ethics actually are.

and second

2) How to apply them fairly within a society.

Any Takers on this beginning to the debate?

 

[1069]

Hmm. I'm not entirely sure what "The Ethics" are or what specifically this is in reference to; it's always been fairly irrelevant to me whether a fetus is or is not a human, a person, a human being, sentient, nonsentient, etc; the fact is that nobody has the right to commandeer somebody else's bodily resources without their consent. Denying someone your body or your bodily resources is not, in my opinion, "murder", even if this denial somehow results in their death. And it is highly questionable to me whether a fetus is, in any event, a "person". I dn't think it is. But I also don't much care. No born person has the right to access anyone else's body against their will, so why should an unborn maybe/maybe not "person" have that right?
And the fact is that all people- male and female- have the right to bodily sovereignty, and therefore get to decide when and with whom to share their bodies and their resources.

The argument of the pro-life that a woman gives implicit or tacit consent to pregnancy and childbirth when she consents to sex has failed to convince me; for myself, I feel no moral obligation to gestate any fetus I don't want, should I be so unlucky as to experience another accidental pregnancy (unlikely at this point, for a number of reasons, and probably- soon- impossible).

I am not opposed to women who do feel such an obligation.
I am opposed, however, to those who profess to know what's best for all women, and who propagate the opinion that all women should feel obligated to host unwanted fetuses, or those who are trying to change laws so that women no longer have access to safe, legal reproductive health care.

So, I guess that's where I'm at, in this debate.
I don't know anything about any morals or ethics around the issue; I see it more as a personal biological function, rather than a moral issue.
On the moral/ethical front, I wish people would take better care of children that are already here.
But apparently, that's an entirely separate issue.

 

[talloulou]

Hmm. I'm not entirely sure what "The Ethics" are or what specifically this is in reference to; it's always been fairly irrelevant to me whether a fetus is or is not a human, a person, a human being, sentient, nonsentient, etc; the fact is that nobody has the right to commandeer somebody else's bodily resources without their consent.

You can't bake a pie and then claim it's using your kitchen without your permission. :roll: You can't build a house and then claim it stole your land!

The fact that you find sentience irrelevant is horrific. I mean it really really is.

And the fact is that all people- male and female- have the right to bodily sovereignty, and therefore get to decide when and with whom to share their bodies and their resources.

Women don't get to decide to BE pregnant because they want to be. Why should the flip side be any different? Obviously we don't have 100% control over our own reproduction.

On the moral/ethical front, I wish people would take better care of children that are already here.
But apparently, that's an entirely separate issue.

It is an entirely seperate issue but at the same time when you're pregnant your offspring is already here.

 

[talloulou]

For me ethics are just decisions about right and wrong. We disagree on many many things but one thing that seems to be universally accepted in civilized society is that one human should not take the life of another human without just cause.

I don't view a healthy 9 month long pregnancy as "just cause" for the taking of another human's life.

I also believe that most of us universally accept the idea that parents should care for and protect their offspring. That doing such is "doing the right thing." If they can not care for their offspring then they should find someone to whom they can safely transfer the responsibilty. A women who places her child up for adoption is more responsible than the woman who abandons her child in a grocery store.

So in my mind it's obvious that a new human life comes into being at the time of conception and ethically it shouldn't be killed without just cause and it's parents should be obligated to care for it at the very least until such time as care can be transferred safely to another.

I think in terms of "ethics" abortion goes outside what is normally accepted in terms of humans killing one another and parents forsaking their children. I don't see good reason for this exception so I oppose it.

 

[1069]

You can't bake a pie and then claim it's using your kitchen without your permission. You can't build a house and that claim it stole your land!

In fact, I can.
My land, my kitchen, my body.
Anything that I don't want on/in anything that belongs to me, I will oust.
You can't stop me. Nobody can. If laws are passed against women having sovereignty over their bodies, I will defy these laws, and I will encourage and assist other women in defying them, because the laws will be unjust and wrong, and it is the responsibility of a citizenry to defy and overthrow corrupt governments and unjust legislature.
And what could be more unjust than a government that denies half its citizens basic human rights?

 

[tecoyah]

All excellent points, and valuable opinion on the ethical considerations before us. Though not giving detail on the general ethics of terminating a fetus, it does touch on the ethics of individuals dealing with the biology of pregnancy. This is invariably tied, in my opinion, to the underlying debate on what makes a "right or wrong" descision in the mind of he observer, and therein lies the Ethical aspect of this whole thing.
Some will be disgusted by the imiplied lack of compassion for what will become a baby, and others will not. Some will fight to the last to protect what they percieve as an innocent human being, while others will simply disregard the action as removing a cellular mass with potential.
So....who has the ethical highground:

1) the protector of the innocent

2) the defender of the freedom

Tough call.....regardless of where you sit.

 

[talloulou]

In fact, I can.
My land, my kitchen, my body.
Anything that I don't want on/in anything that belongs to me, I will oust.
You can't stop me. Nobody can. If laws are passed against women having sovereignty over their bodies, I will defy these laws, and I will encourage and assist other women in defying them, because the laws will be unjust and wrong, and it is the responsibility of a citizenry to defy and overthrow corrupt governments and unjust legislature.
And what could be more unjust than a government that denies half its citizens basic human rights?

If a man no longer wants his penis there is no law saying that drs. must give him that option and make that option legal and safely available. Men are turned down for sex changes all the time. They don't get a safe and legal way to have their penis chopped off just 'cause they "don't want it."

So the type of bodily sovereignty you're talking about doesn't exist. There is no legal right to have access to safe removal of any body part you so desire! There never has been any such right. And if your are claiming the ZEF is an invader stealing from you vs just a part of you then you are giving the ZEF individual status. And as an individual human it's harder to justify withholding personhood. But if personhood remains out of the ZEF's reach then you can't do anything about the ZEF stealing from you anyway because there is no person to sue.

Furthermore at least the guy wanting his penis chopped off is dealing with a penis that was beyond his control. There were no actions he could have taken to keep his body from being born with a penis. Yet he has no constitutional right to have it safely and legally removed. He can be forced to keep it. A woman though does have one absolute way to avoid pregnancy. And yes tons of people have sex without wanting to get pregnant but NOT having sex will definitely keep you from getting pregnant.

 

[tecoyah]

I was honestly hoping this would not become a duplicate of the other couple hundred threads in the abortion forum. That maybe....Just , maybe we might spend a bit of time on the actual issues, rather than the emotionally charged and personal agendas we all have. It seems to me the circle jerk of argument is accomplishing very little in the way of clarifying why we all disagree in the first place, and instead widens the gap into a formidable canyon of b!tchfesting.
Anyway....this was my hope. Is it too much to ask?

 

[talloulou]

I was honestly hoping this would not become a duplicate of the other couple hundred threads in the abortion forum. That maybe....Just , maybe we might spend a bit of time on the actual issues, rather than the emotionally charged and personal agendas we all have. It seems to me the circle jerk of argument is accomplishing very little in the way of clarifying why we all disagree in the first place, and instead widens the gap into a formidable canyon of b!tchfesting.
Anyway....this was my hope. Is it too much to ask?

Whatever I'll bow out of the conversation and you two can spend a couple of posts praising and agreeing with one another. Have fun! :2wave:

 

[jallman]

Women don't get to decide to BE pregnant because they want to be. Why should the flip side be any different? Obviously we don't have 100% control over our own reproduction.

I hope you still see me as a reasonable man and capable of making an objective assessment, but I have a fierce disagreement with you on this point alone.

Women, in the past, did not get to decide on their pregnancy status if they had been exposed to a reproductive situation. However, we now have technology and knowledge that gives us both a kinetic ability and a moral obligation to consider reproduction in terms of any other biological function.

You are going to seriously hate me for saying this but I have to be true and at least offer the idea....

Reproduction is a bodily function of no more consequence to the originating species member than taking a pi$$ or a $hit. It is a byproduct of indulgence in a natural human lust which was ingrained in us before we had concept of our own being. If a woman can overcome such an unfair obligation and seize some form of liberty by expressing her right to admit or deny such an attachment to a base biological function, then I have no right to hinder her in her pursuit of happiness and liberty.

You, as a woman, should be at least willing to recognize this perceived slight by other women.

The truth of the matter is that I am a gay man who has very little hope of having any kind of tangible impression on this particular issue. True, with a very select and improbable set of circumstances, my opinion might one day be important beyond a theoretical context, but for now, I am just opining about the rights or restrictions of the other gender. I have no right to determine the morality of another until I can show a vested state interest in protecting someone, somewhere.

I can't, with clear conscience and respect to my fellow citizens, argue such an interest until a time when the fetus has the possible capacity for suffering. After I can demonstrably express such an interest, through scientific and factual discourse, then I have every right to fight tooth and nail for the protection of our weakest social elements.

Fairness and honesty is always my first pursuit.

 

[talloulou]

Women, in the past, did not get to decide on their pregnancy status if they had been exposed to a reproductive situation. However, we now have technology and knowledge that gives us both a kinetic ability and a moral obligation to consider reproduction in terms of any other biological function.

Well we have ways to increase or decrease the odds of conceiving. True enough. But we don't have it down to an exact science yet although I think birth control pills are pretty damn reliable.

You are going to seriously hate me for saying this but I have to be true and at least offer the idea....

I doubt I could hate you but let's see...

Reproduction is a bodily function of no more consequence to the originating species member than taking a pi$$ or a $hit.

I don't know if you can fairly compare reproduction to taking a $hit. It's shocking and crude but beyond that the idea that the consequence of taking a pi$$ or $hit is the same as the consequence of reproduction doesn't hold up. We all $hit daily if we're lucky. We piss more than once a day. Pregnancy is nowhere near as common as $hiting or pi$$ing. Furthermore women arent' out there fighting against their biological disposition towards $hiting and *******. Plus $hiting and ******* are bodily functions for excreting waste product while reproduction well reproduces another human. Quite a bit more significant than a $hit. And I realize what you are getting at. Some women want to flush their offspring as if they were nothing more than $hit but I find that idea hard to swallow.

It is a byproduct of indulgence in a natural human lust which was ingrained in us before we had concept of our own being. If a woman can overcome such an unfair obligation and seize some form of liberty by expressing her right to admit or deny such an attachment to a base biological function, then I have no right to hinder her in her pursuit of happiness and liberty.

None of us are able to detach from our base biological functions. You don't get to stop ******* because you find it distasteful. You can't stop taking $hits because you find them uncomfortable.

And while I obviously don't hate you I am surprised that you agree "parasite" is just an insult and shouldn't be used yet you now claim carrying a ZEF is no more significant than $hiting or *******. :roll: Obviously it is so much more than that otherwise you'd be able to do it too. We all crap and piss. We can't all carry ZEF's. We all crap and piss on a daily basis while even those who can carry ZEF's spend very little of their entire lifetime actually doing so.

 

[jallman]

None of us are able to detach from our base biological functions. You don't get to stop ******* because you find it distasteful. You can't stop taking $hits because you find them uncomfortable.

However, any person gets to determine the time, place, and quality of bathroom tissue that gets dispensed when taking a dump or a pi$$. The end result, on the most base and vulgar level is exactly the same as when reproduction is opted against: a byproduct of a necessary (I do see sexual contact as necessary) indulgence and, if arrested before any moral consequence evolves, is nothing more than waste producing element of our existence.

 

[talloulou]

However, any person gets to determine the time, place, and quality of bathroom tissue that gets dispensed when taking a dump or a pi$$. The end result, on the most base and vulgar level is exactly the same as when reproduction is opted against: a byproduct of a necessary (I do see sexual contact as necessary) indulgence and, if arrested before any moral consequence evolves, is nothing more than waste producing element of our existence.

So now the ZEF isn't even comparable to the excretement but to the type of tissue used to wipe ones a$$! :rofl I think not. $hit just lies there like expended used up enegy. It has no potential to become anything other than fertilizer and it has no development process. It's not an organism. The ZEF does not compare to taking a dump. And I don't know what the toilet paper analogy is supposed to mean. I mean you could give birth on a bus, in the gutter, or in a clean beautiful room. Likewise you could crap in a bathroom that sparkles, wipe your a$$ with cotton, or use a filthy portapotty downtown. Where you $hit doesn't change what the $hit is. How you wipe your a$$ after $hiting is no more significant than which kinds of sheets you deliver a baby on. It may affect your comfort level but it doesn't in anyway affect what is produced either while crapping or having a baby. Whether they are Egyptian or Sponge Bob sheets the baby is still a baby just as crap is crap even when deposited into a pot of gold.

 

[1069]

So....who has the ethical highground:

1) the protector of the innocent

2) the defender of the freedom

I think "protectors of the innocent" are very admirable indeed; I'm talking about girls or women who are pregnant from rape or otherwise unintentionally pregnant, do not want children, but nevertheless carry the fetus to term, deliver it, and give it to somebody else (or figure out a way to keep it and raise it themselves, even though they hadn't wanted to).

I would support any woman or girl in this situation in any way I could.
I think it shows a great nobility of character.

Nevertheless, I personally think it's a little misguided; it's not necessary to 'sacrifice" everything for a fetus, because a fetus is irrelevant, in my opinion.
But obviously others feel different, and the fact that I believe a fetus is irrelevant in no way blinds me to the courage and character of women who sacrifice their own best interest in order to bring one to fruition.
If I did this myself, however, it would not be a measure of courage and character; it would be sheer perversity- masochism, or seeking attention and accolades from others- since I believe fetuses are neither humans nor relevant, and there's no reasonable or ethical justification for me to sacrifice my best interests- or those of my existing children- to gestate and birth an unwanted fetus.

When I was a child (I won't go into further detail about this, so don't ask), I once made a sacrifice for someone I loved. I made a conscious decision, and I proceeded to commit a particular act to benefit someone else, at great personal cost.
Later, when older and wiser, I realized that this sacrifice I made was not necessary. It cost me and hurt me, and it did not really benefit the other person at all; the other person actually didn't need any help and was never in any danger, although that was my perception of the situation at the time.
My sacrifice was needless and foolish, detrimental to me, and benefited no one.... and was ultimately never even recognized or appreciated.

That does not change the fact that I look back on the incident and applaud the child I was for her courage and selflessness, even though it was misguided and came to nothing, and even though nobody else ever even understood, appreciated, or knew her motivations.

And that's exactly how I feel about women who make a conscious decision to continue unwanted pregnancies to their own detriment, because they feel it's the right thing to do.

I think they're foolish and misguided, and I want to shake them.
At the same time, I am in awe of their gallantry and selflessness (although I have no desire to emulate it, and prefer a healthy self-interest, myself).

Perhaps these women themselves feel proud of their sacrifice. I hope they do.
If so, that is- in itself- its own reward.

What I worry about is these ladies, not even pregnant yet, who say, "I could never have an abortion, even if I was raped, etc etc".
It seems that, rather than a courageous personal sacrifice, they are viewing unwanted pregnancy as some dreary moral/ biological obligation or imperative.
I don't understand that view of being female.
I don't respect it. I could never share it.

 

[jallman]

So now the ZEF isn't even comparable to the excretement but to the type of tissue used to wipe ones a$$! :rofl I think not.

Now with as much ground as I willingly surrender to you, I would expect equal latitude in presenting some less than savory assertions when it is my turn. Are you about to deny me the same concessions I readily give to you?

$hit just lies there like expended used up enegy. It has no potential to become anything other than fertilizer and it has no development process.

May I be so bold as to point out that the ZEF has no better position if the woman who owns the singular womb meant for survival of that ZEF exercises her right to deny allocation of her bodily resources to the pursuit of the ZEF's maturation. It truly does become a wasted byproduct of the human need for physical contact. If this byproduct is handled in a responsible way, then the state has absolutely no interest in the continued welfare of either the woman or the ZEF.

 

[nancyboy]

You can't bake a pie and then claim it's using your kitchen without your permission. :roll: You can't build a house and then claim it stole your land!

The fact that you find sentience irrelevant is horrific. I mean it really really is.


Women don't get to decide to BE pregnant because they want to be. Why should the flip side be any different? Obviously we don't have 100% control over our own reproduction.

It is an entirely seperate issue but at the same time when you're pregnant your offspring is already here.

A house is an end product you are working to me. So if sex is like building a house, and orgasm is a complete house, what is a foetus? squatters who move in?

 

[1069]

A house is an end product you are working to me. So if sex is like building a house, and orgasm is a complete house, what is a foetus? squatters who move in?

Bwahahaha!
Exactly. But, according to Tallou, you'd have no right to evict them.
You shouldn't have built a house, if you didn't want squatters living in it.
You knew there was a possibility that squatters might show up, when you decided to build the house. You chose to go ahead and build it anyway.
Take responsibility for your actions! Support the squatters for the rest of their lives!
After all, if you hadn't built the house, they wouldn't have moved into it, now would they?

 

[talloulou]

Bwahahaha!
Exactly. But, according to Tallou, you'd have no right to evict them.
You shouldn't have built a house, if you didn't want squatters living in it.
You knew there was a possibility that squatters might show up, when you decided to build the house. You chose to go ahead and build it anyway.
Take responsibility for your actions! Support the squatters for the rest of their lives!
After all, if you hadn't built the house, they wouldn't have moved into it, now would they?

It was a metaphor. The house is the fetus! :roll The land is the woman's body. You don't build the house and then complain that's it's guilty of using the land upon which it was built!

Oh well I guess it didn't work well as a metaphor. How 'bout you don't throw a bunch of grass seed on a field and then get pissed when grass grows! Does that work better for ya all?

 

[1069]

You don't build the house and then complain that's it's guilty of using the land upon which it was built!

Are you saying I don't have the right to demo my house if I so desire?
What country are you living in? :roll:

Oh well I guess it didn't work well as a metaphor.

Guess not.
Not much does, really.
All metaphors pretty much cheapen the thing and reduce it to a tasteless joke.
Maybe that's because trying to control somebody else's (or everybody else's) private parts and bodily functions is- besides being an exercise in futility- a tasteless joke.
It makes the people attempting to do the controlling seem like prurient perverts, even as they insist that they're only doing it out of some sort of moral superiority. It's gross. It sucks. It embarrasses me. I wish people would stay out of other people's private business.
But as long as they won't, I have to keep fighting them.
I'll be glad when/if the day comes when we can all call a truce, and agree to focus on our own business and leave each to their own.

 

[tecoyah]

It was a metaphor. The house is the fetus! :roll The land is the woman's body. You don't build the house and then complain that's it's guilty of using the land upon which it was built!

Oh well I guess it didn't work well as a metaphor. How 'bout you don't throw a bunch of grass seed on a field and then get pissed when grass grows! Does that work better for ya all?

How about this:

I'm eating an apple, because I absolutely love apples,they are so damn good I really love the taste, texture, and stimulation of my taste buds. The juices are overpowering to my senses, and the tender luscious meat creates sensations I cant get enough of. So here I am enjoying mt treat,spitting out the seads on my field because they are the one part of this wonderful fruit I dont really want to swallow.
Nine months later I come back to sow my field with corn,and theres a freakin' Apple tree right in the middle of my field, sure to prevent me from harvesting the corn with my tractor. Do I remove the Tree....or just decide not to plant the field?

Well....you began the Analogy Idea.